Reference my July 14 e-mail and Sen.John Warner's letter. Below are my
"first cut" comments and draft reply to the senator's' points:
They are for you to comment on and utilize. I am still trying to get the
list of NATO observer group member senators.
For the time being the NATO expansion is considered as a "package" involving
three countries, thus my comments are in support of all three.
1." Though Pres. Clinton has committed, substantial obstacles remain.."
Answer: Less than a year ago NATO expansion was a key policy objective of
the Dole/Kemp campaign. Sen. Dole criticized the administration on several
occasions for not having a timetable and being too timid.
2"...enormous task of convincing the American people that ..expansion is
vital to our security interest. (it)..means we will put at risk, life and
limb. I am not sure that the American people people are willing to make that
commitment."
Answer: It is up to our leaders, such as yourself, to explain the
desirability of the move. It was leadership (e.g. Pres. Bush) who convinced
the public for a role in the Persian Gulf, in Bosnia, in Haiti. As far as
"why should we die for Brno" (etc.) that is an age-old cliche. Used when
NATO was first proposed, when it expanded, etc. There is more than one answer:
A. If we just continue with the "Old NATO", the USA is still committed to
defend places like Belgium, Turkey, Spain, etc. Are those countries more
worthy than the new candidates ?
B. The proposition goes both ways. Those countries commit themselves as much
as the USA. In fact, they have already put their resources on the line.
Remember the 1968 Prague Spring- crushed by the Warsaw Pact's armor ?
Poland "Solidarity"? And most dramatically Hungary's 1956 revolt and 1989
dismantling of the "Iron Curtain" ? The 1956 revolt claimed thousands of
Hungarian casualties, crushed only by the Red Army's heavy armor and 190
thousand fled the country. More important perhaps, this proved to be the
turning point of the largest W.European communist parties. The Hungarian
revolt debunked communism as a "People's movement" and these parties
disavowed Moscow; ultimately losing their popularity as well.Major benefit:
NATO's home turf safe from getting stabbed in the back, Is it fair to tell
these people "it was OK for you to die for us, but now we don't want you "?
More recently all three countries have been enthusiastic participants in
"partnership for peace". All three had sent support to the Allies in Desert
Storm; participated in Bosnia IFOR, currently in SFOR.
3"...cost of expansion..and the questionable ability of..former Warsaw Pact
nations to contribute to the security of the Alliance. I do not believe
these nations should be allowed to join NATO until they have the military
hardware and personnel to "carry their own weight".
Admittedly cost allocations and budgeting an important part of the process.
At the same time can one tell these countries: "go ahead and start spending
money and in a few years we'll look at it ?"
4.More on costs:" $27-35 billion, some say more...it is in the best interest
of both the United States and NATO to proceed cautiously..until Congress and
other nations' parliaments..have had time to examine and debate these issues."
Answer: The debate has started. The Hungarian parliament unanimously
endorsed the NATO negotiations: parties that more often disagree on most
issues. The only factions opposing are the extreme right and Communist
movements, none of which has enough votes for legislative representation.
Furthermore a referendum is to be held. If the public endorses the move, (as
expected) the government will be encouraged to take measures in support of
NATO participation and burdensharing.
5. "Majority Leader Lott has assembled a NATO observer group in the Senate
to consider all of these issues. I am honored to serve ..and look forward to
the challenges".
Comment: With the cold war over (for good, we hope) clearly NATO needs to be
looked at in terms of mission, structure, organizational matters, military
approach etc. To some extent this has already taken place and hopefully
will continue in a more deliberate fashion. But is it wise or fair to
scapegoat the three candidate countries for the slow process ? The
reengineering of NATO (even perhaps a name change) can and should take place
with their participation and unique experiences. Let us hope the "Observer
group" will look at the broad picture: NATO overall.

Reference my July 14 e-mail and Sen.John Warner's letter. Below are my
"first cut" comments and draft reply to the senator's' points:
They are for you to comment on and utilize. I am still trying to get the
list of NATO observer group member senators.
For the time being the NATO expansion is considered as a "package" involving
three countries, thus my comments are in support of all three.
1." Though Pres. Clinton has committed, substantial obstacles remain.."
Answer: Less than a year ago NATO expansion was a key policy objective of
the Dole/Kemp campaign. Sen. Dole criticized the administration on several
occasions for not having a timetable and being too timid.
2"...enormous task of convincing the American people that ..expansion is
vital to our security interest. (it)..means we will put at risk, life and
limb. I am not sure that the American people people are willing to make that
commitment."
Answer: It is up to our leaders, such as yourself, to explain the
desirability of the move. It was leadership (e.g. Pres. Bush) who convinced
the public for a role in the Persian Gulf, in Bosnia, in Haiti. As far as
"why should we die for Brno" (etc.) that is an age-old cliche. Used when
NATO was first proposed, when it expanded, etc. There is more than one answer:
A. If we just continue with the "Old NATO", the USA is still committed to
defend places like Belgium, Turkey, Spain, etc. Are those countries more
worthy than the new candidates ?
B. The proposition goes both ways. Those countries commit themselves as much
as the USA. In fact, they have already put their resources on the line.
Remember the 1968 Prague Spring- crushed by the Warsaw Pact's armor ?
Poland "Solidarity"? And most dramatically Hungary's 1956 revolt and 1989
dismantling of the "Iron Curtain" ? The 1956 revolt claimed thousands of
Hungarian casualties, crushed only by the Red Army's heavy armor and 190
thousand fled the country. More important perhaps, this proved to be the
turning point of the largest W.European communist parties. The Hungarian
revolt debunked communism as a "People's movement" and these parties
disavowed Moscow; ultimately losing their popularity as well.Major benefit:
NATO's home turf safe from getting stabbed in the back, Is it fair to tell
these people "it was OK for you to die for us, but now we don't want you "?
More recently all three countries have been enthusiastic participants in
"partnership for peace". All three had sent support to the Allies in Desert
Storm; participated in Bosnia IFOR, currently in SFOR.
3"...cost of expansion..and the questionable ability of..former Warsaw Pact
nations to contribute to the security of the Alliance. I do not believe
these nations should be allowed to join NATO until they have the military
hardware and personnel to "carry their own weight".
Admittedly cost allocations and budgeting an important part of the process.
At the same time can one tell these countries: "go ahead and start spending
money and in a few years we'll look at it ?"
4.More on costs:" $27-35 billion, some say more...it is in the best interest
of both the United States and NATO to proceed cautiously..until Congress and
other nations' parliaments..have had time to examine and debate these issues."
Answer: The debate has started. The Hungarian parliament unanimously
endorsed the NATO negotiations: parties that more often disagree on most
issues. The only factions opposing are the extreme right and Communist
movements, none of which has enough votes for legislative representation.
Furthermore a referendum is to be held. If the public endorses the move, (as
expected) the government will be encouraged to take measures in support of
NATO participation and burdensharing.
5. "Majority Leader Lott has assembled a NATO observer group in the Senate
to consider all of these issues. I am honored to serve ..and look forward to
the challenges".
Comment: With the cold war over (for good, we hope) clearly NATO needs to be
looked at in terms of mission, structure, organizational matters, military
approach etc. To some extent this has already taken place and hopefully
will continue in a more deliberate fashion. But is it wise or fair to
scapegoat the three candidate countries for the slow process ? The
reengineering of NATO (even perhaps a name change) can and should take place
with their participation and unique experiences. Let us hope the "Observer
group" will look at the broad picture: NATO overall.